1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to software for implementing structures and methods of conducting debates and adversarial discussion among participants over a computer network. Specifically, it relates to software for enabling an efficient structure for online communication that promotes focused, time-saving, and rational discussions.
2. Discussion of Related Art
Although the number of present Internet and computer network applications and forums for conducting debates and adversarial discussions via electronic communication over a computer network is vast they have significant drawbacks.
Despite the vast increase in online communication and the growing prevalence of online debates and adversarial discussions, the quality of such discussions and debate has not improved. Free-form discussion methods such as e-mail, instant messaging, discussion-groups, and “chat rooms,” as well as live conversation or verbal argumentation, all suffer from weaknesses that make it difficult to foster rational and structured debate among participants because of their free form nature.
Online discussions began with Usenet Newsgroups, CompuServe Forums, and early e-mail which catered to a small minority of technical users. Over the past decade, these tools have grown and presently have millions of users who regularly discuss a wide range of topics, while e-mail, also used to discuss and debate issues, has become the single most widespread tool on the Internet. However, both modes of communication lack structure, have low content-to-noise ratios, and suffer from other drawbacks.
With online discussions, a typical discussion begins when one individual makes one or a series of points or statements which initiates a dialogue. Individuals responding to these points do so in any manner they wish. As a result current methods start with an argument which stems outwards in many directions. This outward meandering approach to responding to a point frequently results in the original point and its context getting lost while individuals pursue fragments of the original issue. It is only with considerable effort that both participants and observers can be mindful of all of the responses and points made and how they relate to the main argument. Given that online discussions can take place over significant periods of time, the cognitive overload required of the participants and observers (hereinafter “users”) often results in off-topic discussions because users fail to recall the original context.
Another problem arises from the fact that users often conflate an assumption—a belief that one accepts as true without support—and inferences and conclusions that they make from that assumption. This often inadvertent mixing of two different types of beliefs suggests implied support for an assumption that does not exist. Including hidden assumptions often dilutes a rigorous and disciplined debate or any type of rational dialogue and all assumptions should be distinguished from inferences, conclusions, and so on.
Another issue with traditional, free-form methods such as e-mail and discussion groups is that although communication within an adversarial discussion or debate often consists of two distinct phases, this distinction is lost or blurred with e-mail and discussion groups. The first phase consists of the back-and-forth between users where each is simply trying to understand what the others are trying to say or what their point is. The second phase is the distillation of what the true disagreement is—the “Aha!” moment—when two or more users realize what their differences really are. While the ‘back-and-forth’ phase is essential to reaching the “Aha!” moment, it is only the true disagreement that is fundamental to the adversarial discussion or debate. With present communication tools, forums, and applications there is no distinction between these two phases. The true point of disagreement is buried amid excessive noise leading to a high noise-to-content ratio.
Because of the unstructured, free-form characteristic of present tools for adversarial discussion, a frequent problem is digression, both intentional and unintentional, from the main point. Unintentional digression is expected within a context-free method given that a free-form structure allows users to unintentionally digress. In contrast, intentional digression often occurs in response to valid criticism of a position and is typically an attempt to distract other users from evaluating such criticism and to bury it amid other less insightful or relevant statements. Both forms of digression increase the cognitive load of users attempting to ascertain the relevant parts of a debate and are fundamentally detrimental to understanding, participating, and benefiting from an adversarial discussion of a topic.
Another drawback of present tools and forums stems from human nature's predisposition to try and ‘get the last word’ in a debate or discussion. As the phrase implies, ‘getting the last word’ means that a user or speaker is the last one to be heard in an argument. Present tools encourage this behavior which is a strong motivating factor to continue an argument beyond the point where the discussion is meaningful and worthwhile, exacerbating all the drawbacks described above. Furthermore, present tools by their very nature give a user with the highest number of statements or posts to a discussion a distinct advantage, allowing essentially a filibuster of a critique.
It is worth noting that the related field of Collaborative Argumentation generally assumes a cooperation of participants seeking a common goal and is not intended to foster adversarial discussion. Collaborative Argumentation methods result in enormous tree structures with the disadvantages described above. When a discussion is adversarial instead of cooperative then these tree structures become even more unwieldy due to the increased back-and-forth discussion among users who do not agree. This increases the cognitive loads on users as they try to keep the most relevant information in mind while attempting to block out the noise.
Thus, there is a need for an application and tool for conducting, facilitating and fostering rational and focused adversarial discussions.